Feedbacks and Trade-Offs in the Use of Wetland Ecosystem Services by Local Communities in Rural Zimbabwe
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
sustainability
Article
Feedbacks and Trade-Offs in the Use of Wetland Ecosystem
Services by Local Communities in Rural Zimbabwe
Emmah Mandishona and Jasper Knight *
School of Geography, Archaeology & Environmental Studies, University of the Witwatersrand,
Johannesburg 2050, South Africa; emandishona@gmail.com
* Correspondence: jasper.knight@wits.ac.za
Abstract: Rural wetlands, especially in developing countries, have been exploited for different
ecosystem services because they are considered safety nets for food production and are important for
livelihood strategies and human wellbeing. However, there are gaps in knowledge of the ecosystem
services provided by small, valley bottom wetlands, especially in dryland areas and how these
services are used and managed by local communities. This study focuses on the ecosystem services
of valley bottom wetlands in Zindi, the Honde Valley, in rural eastern Zimbabwe. Ethnographic
observations of wetland users’ activities and individual interviews with local residents and village
heads were undertaken in this study, focusing on how people make use of the different ecosystem
services that are derived from these wetlands. Results show that the wetlands are mainly utilised
for provisioning services, but that these are related to the availability and properties of supporting
and regulatory services in the wetland environment. All of these services are also strongly mediated
by the traditional cultural contexts and values held by local communities. The results show that the
exploitation of some ecosystem services leads to negative impacts on the availability or properties
of others, and this means that there are trade-offs in the uses and management by individuals and
communities as a whole. These feedbacks and trade-offs are not well explored in most studies
Citation: Mandishona, E.; Knight, J.
but are critical in considering community responses to changing wetland resources, in particular
Feedbacks and Trade-Offs in the Use under climate change. This study recommends that policymakers should include small and often
of Wetland Ecosystem Services by hitherto overlooked wetlands in their management plans, since they are critical for supporting rural
Local Communities in Rural livelihoods. It is also important that wetland management plans aim to improve the range and
Zimbabwe. Sustainability 2022, 14, sustainability of ecosystem services available and avoid the need for unnecessary trade-offs in their
1789. https://doi.org/10.3390/ use by local communities.
su14031789
Academic Editor: Changwoo Ahn
Keywords: wetland resources; ecosystem services; indigenous communities; valley bottom wetlands;
ethnography; food security
Received: 15 December 2021
Accepted: 19 January 2022
Published: 4 February 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral 1. Introduction
with regard to jurisdictional claims in Globally, wetlands have been exploited for the different ecosystem services they pro-
published maps and institutional affil- vide, both direct and indirect, that contribute to human wellbeing [1–5]. Local communities
iations.
are therefore connected to wetlands since their ecosystems services contribute to human
livelihoods, especially in areas that are water-scarce [6–10]. According to the Millenium
Ecosystem Assessment [11], the ecosystem services provided by wetlands are provision-
ing (food, fresh water, fibre, and fuel), regulatory (water purification, water regulation,
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
and climate regulation), cultural (spiritual, recreational, aesthetic, and educational), and
This article is an open access article
supporting services (soil formation and nutrient cycling). However, in practice, these
distributed under the terms and
service types are closely interconnected [12,13], and there is therefore a need to explore
conditions of the Creative Commons these relationships in more detail in order to understand how any one service or resource
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// may influence other services. Previous research has emphasised the ecosystem services
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ provided by large wetlands, but this tends to overlook small or remote wetlands despite
4.0/). these being pivotal in providing ecosystem services to sustain rural livelihoods, especially
Sustainability 2022, 14, 1789. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031789 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2022, 14, 1789 2 of 14
in the developing world [14]. In Africa, seasonally flooded wetlands such as dambos or
vleis have been used to support agricultural systems, with local people using the wetlands
for food, water, firewood, and fibre resources [15–19]. In Zimbabwe, the capacity of dambos
to allow for multiple cropping and to retain moisture for long periods has resulted in their
widespread use for cultivation [20,21]. Wetlands therefore play a vital role in reducing
poverty through their provisioning services of food production, in particular [6,11,15,22,23].
Increased rural populations and changes in socioeconomic practices have increased the
demand for provisioning services [11,24,25] especially related to the commercialisation of
wetland agriculture. However, not all wetlands provide all ecosystem services equally [26],
according to their physical properties of soil and water, their size, and different ecosys-
tems [27,28]. Broadly, the ecological status and characteristics of wetlands determine the
nature and types of ecosystem services available. The overexploitation of wetlands also
determines the nature of trade-offs between different ecosystem services [29–31]. As a
result of different anthropogenic activities, ecosystem services in wetlands do not remain
static and are not either equally available or equally depleted [31].
These issues are explored in this study through the use by local communities of valley
bottom wetlands in rural eastern Zimbabwe (Figure 1). Zimbabwe has a variety of small
wetlands, locally termed dambos or vleis, and these occupy 3.6% of the country’s total
land area [32]. These seasonally waterlogged wetlands are found in footslope locations
at the bases of dry upland areas [33–35]. The presence of seasonally-wet valley bottom
wetlands in semiarid countries such as Zimbabwe should therefore be acknowledged as key
providers of ecosystem services that contribute to human wellbeing. This study selected
six wetlands (Tawarara A, Tawarara B, Rutsate, Mareya, Chiwira, and Madimbo) as case
studies from the Honde Valley area of eastern Zimbabwe. This area was purposively
selected due to the severity of wetland exploitation and because there are no previous
studies on this topic in this area. The objectives of this paper are to (1) identify the different
ecosystem services provided by the valley bottom wetlands and assess the relationships
between these ecosystem services, based on observations of and interviews with local
community members; (2) assess how the different ecosystem services provided by these
wetlands have contributed to human wellbeing; and (3) consider how the trade-offs in the
use of specific resources and ecosystem services frame the ways in which these wetlands
are valued and managed by local communities.
Sustainability 2022,
Sustainability 14, 1789
2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 3of
of 15
14
Figure 1. Map showing the studied wetlands in the Honde Valley, Zimbabwe.
Figure 1. Map showing the studied wetlands in the Honde Valley, Zimbabwe.
2.
2. Materials
Materials and
and Methods
Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.1. Study Area
Six wetlands
wetlandswere wereexamined
examinedinin this
thisstudy in Zindi,
study the Honde
in Zindi, the HondeValley, in eastern
Valley, Zim-
in eastern
babwe (Figure 1). These small wetlands are intensively exploited by local communities for
Zimbabwe (Figure 1). These small wetlands are intensively exploited by local communities
their ecosystem
for their services,
ecosystem mainly
services, for agriculture,
mainly and range
for agriculture, in sizein
and range from
size2.4 hectares
from to 13.6
2.4 hectares
◦ 290 S, 32◦ 500 E;
hectares. The Honde
to 13.6 hectares. TheValley
HondeisValley
located is in the Mutasa
located in theDistrict
Mutasa(18°29′ S, (18
District 32°50′ E; elevation
912 m asl)912
elevation within the
m asl) Zimbabwe
within Eastern Highlands.
the Zimbabwe The Honde
Eastern Highlands. The Valley
Honde area
Valleyis area
part is
ofpart
the
Odzi-Mutare-Manica Greenstone Belt, which is made up of Archaean granites [36] and
of the Odzi-Mutare-Manica Greenstone Belt, which is made up of Archaean granites [36]
has
and orthoferralitic soilssoils
has orthoferralitic withwith
highhigh
organic and and
organic clay clay
contents and,and,
contents thus,thus,
generally highhigh
generally soil
fertility [37]. This region has a subtropical to temperate climate with mean annual temper-
soil fertility [37]. This region has a subtropical to temperate climate with mean annual
temperatures ◦ C and total annual rainfall in the range of 900–1000 mm [38]. Most
atures of 15–18of°C15–18
and total annual rainfall in the range of 900–1000 mm [38]. Most rainfall
rainfall
falls falls in summer
in summer and is related
and is related to the movement
to the movement of the of the Intertropical
Intertropical Convergence
Convergence Zone
Zone [39]. The main rivers in the Honde Valley are the Pungwe
[39]. The main rivers in the Honde Valley are the Pungwe and Honde, and these and many and Honde, and these
and many
smaller smaller
streams arestreams are associated
associated with wetlands, with wetlands,
especially especially
in footslope in locations.
footslope locations.
The soils
The soils and climate of the region support plants of the
and climate of the region support plants of the Afromontane phytogeographicAfromontane phytogeographic
region,
region,
with withdegree
a high a high degree of endemism
of endemism [40] and [40] and
also also support
support smallholder
smallholder and subsistence
and subsistence farm-
farming communities.
ing communities.
The study area has an agrarian economy with rural dwellers mainly practicing subsis-
The study area has an agrarian economy with rural dwellers mainly practicing sub-
tence and semi-commercial to commercial agriculture [41]. Rural dwellers keep a variety of
sistence and semi-commercial to commercial agriculture [41]. Rural dwellers keep a vari-
livestock (cattle, goats, and sheep) and grow crops such as potatoes, maize, coffee, tea, yam,
ety of livestock (cattle, goats, and sheep) and grow crops such as potatoes, maize, coffee,
groundnuts, and sugarcane. Fruits such as apples, bananas, and pineapples are produced
tea, yam, groundnuts, and sugarcane. Fruits such as apples, bananas, and pineapples are
in this area because of the cool climate [42]. Market gardening is also practiced, and people
produced in this area because of the cool climate [42]. Market gardening is also practiced,
grow different types of vegetables for consumption. Bananas, pineapples, and apples are
and people grow different types of vegetables for consumption. Bananas, pineapples, and
grown mostly for sale. Smallholder farmers in Honde Valley also grow yams on wetlands
apples are grown mostly for sale. Smallholder farmers in Honde Valley also grow yams
on wetlands and near riverbanks for sale and consumption. However, due to the short
Sustainability 2022, 14, 1789 4 of 14
and near riverbanks for sale and consumption. However, due to the short rainy season
and unpredictable rainfall, many wetlands in the Honde Valley are drying up, and the
area available for growing yams is decreasing [41]. Bananas are also a source of income, as
smallholder farmers can grow them through irrigation in some wetlands [42], and bananas
are sent for sale in cities such as Mutare, Harare, and Bulawayo as well as local towns such
as Rusape and Chivhu [41].
2.2. Methods of Participant Data Collection and Analysis
Qualitative methods such as direct observation, and semi-structured interviews were
used to for in-depth understanding of the ecosystem services provided by valley bottom
wetlands. Residents of local farming communities around the six wetlands were sampled,
since they interact with the wetlands daily through farming activities and so have knowl-
edge of the different ecosystem services they derive from the wetlands. Snowball sampling
was used to select participants for interviews with the final sample size (n = 49) determined
by data saturation. The interview schedule comprised 40 questions divided into two sec-
tions. Section A dealt with respondents’ demographic and background information such
as age, employment status, education, size of family, any farming activities they practiced,
and whether they were using wetlands and in what ways. Section B had open-ended
questions on the types of crops grown, methods used for crop production, any changes ob-
served in wetland water, soil, plants and animals, wetland users’ interaction with different
stakeholders, and conflicts related to wetland land use. Interviews were undertaken in the
local language of Shona and audio recorded with permission of the participants.
Interviews were also conducted with village heads (n = 3), as they are traditional
community leaders who have influence on wetland access and use and act as liaison
points with government officials and extension workers. The village head interview
questions focused on how wetlands were used in the past and present, any traditional
beliefs on wetland use, whether they impose regulations on the use of wetlands, and any
challenges they face in enforcing these regulations. Direct observations and photographs of
wetland users and their activities in the wetlands (in farming, harvesting, tending crops,
collecting water, and plant products) were also undertaken with permission in order to
establish how users interact with wetland resources of different types and, through informal
conversations, to explore their motives, values and decision-making processes. Transcribed
semi-structured interviews were analysed through a qualitative content analysis by a
process of coding and categorisation, followed by thematic analysis. Relevant textual data
were then coded inductively, and themes were developed through data interpretation. This
study received institutional ethics approval, number H18/09/13. Results are reported
herein in an aggregated form from across the six wetlands.
3. Results
3.1. Extraction of Food Resources from the Wetlands
The six valley bottom wetlands in Honde Valley were exploited mainly for their provi-
sioning services for food production. Most respondents (92%) had farms or were making
use of ecological resources from the wetlands. Farmed crops included tea, pineapples,
maize, yam, sugarcane, groundnuts, cassava, and beans; leafy vegetables such as cabbage
and kale; fruit and vegetables such as okra, eggplant, tomatoes, and peppers; tuber vegeta-
bles such as potatoes, ginger, and turmeric; and bulb vegetables such as onions and shallots.
Exotic fruit trees such as bananas, mangos, avocados, lemons, oranges, litchis, and naartjies
(tangerines) were also grown, mainly for sale. The key reason stated for the agricultural use
of wetlands was the favourable conditions for plant growth related to water and nutrients
(90% of respondents), allowing for food security and income generation. In addition, most
(80%) respondents were engaged in livestock-keeping on the wetlands with chickens, goats,
pigs, and cattle recorded. Of all the respondents, 18% were involved in crop production
only, 2% in livestock only, and 78% in both. Two farmers were engaged in fish farming for
consumption and sale, one of which said that she would harvest about 100 kg of fish during
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 15
Sustainability 2022, 14, 1789 5 of 14
were engaged in fish farming for consumption and sale, one of which said that she would
harvest about 100 kg of fish during six months for sale both locally and to nearby towns.
Only one respondent (2%) was not engaged in farming activities. These different agricul-
six months for sale both locally and to nearby towns. Only one respondent (2%) was not
ture types have different requirements in terms of resource use, foraging, water, and these
engaged in farming activities. These different agriculture types have different requirements
requirements also vary through the year. Most respondents (90%) concurred that early
in terms of resource use, foraging, water, and these requirements also vary through the
harvest from wetland crops cushioned them against late and unreliable harvests on sur-
year. Most respondents (90%) concurred that early harvest from wetland crops cushioned
rounding drylands. Although bananas and sugarcane were grown for sale, they were also
them against late and unreliable harvests on surrounding drylands. Although bananas and
recognised
sugarcane wereby farmers
grown as foruseful in reducing
sale, they were also soil erosion (bananas)
recognised by farmers andas for decreasing
useful soil
in reducing
moisture in waterlogged areas (sugarcane).
soil erosion (bananas) and for decreasing soil moisture in waterlogged areas (sugarcane).
Besides
Besides harvesting
harvesting aa variety
variety of of crops
crops andand fish from formal
fish from formal agriculture,
agriculture, respondents
respondents
also
also collected fruits from both indigenous and exotic trees. Indigenous fruits
collected fruits from both indigenous and exotic trees. Indigenous fruits include
include
maonde
maonde (from
(from muonde
muonde or or fig
fig trees),
trees), hute
hute (from
(from mukute
mukute or or Syzygium
Syzygium cordatum
cordatum trees),
trees), and
and
magopokopo (Mystroxylon aethiopicum
magopokopo (Mystroxylon aethiopicum trees).
trees). Indigenous
Indigenous plantplant vegetables
vegetables and andalsoalsomush-
mush-
rooms
rooms were
were harvested
harvested from wetlands during
from wetlands during the the rainy
rainy season
season (Figure
(Figure 2).2). These
These plants
plants
include
include those
those locally
locally known
known as as derere (Corchorus olitorius),
derere (Corchorus olitorius), teketere (Galinsoga parviflora),
teketere (Galinsoga parviflora),
nhungunira
nhungunira (Bidens pilosa),
(Bidenspilosa), tapatapa (Justicia
(Justicia spp.),spp.), mutsematsema
mutsematsema (Cleome(Cleome monophylla),
monophylla), mutsun-
mutsungura (Solanum nigrum), and mubvunzandadya
gura (Solanum nigrum), and mubvunzandadya (Chenopodium album). Some farmers(Chenopodium album). Some farm-
kept
ers
beeskept bees
in the in the wetlands,
wetlands, with honey with forhoney for consumption
consumption or sale. Bee or farming
sale. Beewasfarming
common was in
com-
the
mon in thewetland,
Madimbo Madimbo wetland,
where where
farmers keptfarmers kept their
their beehives inbeehives
and around in and
the around the river
river adjacent to
adjacent to theRespondent
the wetland. wetland. Respondent
19 explained 19 explained
that they that they preferred
preferred placing the placing the beehives
beehives on trees
on treesaround
in and in and around the wetland
the wetland rivers rivers
because because they believed
they believed that flowers
that flowers in these
in these wet-
wetland
land
trees trees attracted
attracted the bees
the bees (Figure
(Figure 2). Besides
2). Besides formalformal agriculture,
agriculture, micemice and locusts
and locusts werewere
also
also
caughtcaught
in theinwetlands
the wetlands for in
for food, food, in particular
particular by children
by children and when andthewhen the wetlands
wetlands were left
were left idle
idle from Aprilfrom April
to the endtoofthe
Julyend (dryofseason)
July (dry andseason)
whereand where the
the growth growth
of grass andofweeds
grass
and weedsshelter
provided provided shelter
for these for these
animals andanimals
insects.and insects.
Figure
Figure 2.
2. Exploitation
Exploitation ofof food
food resources
resources from
from Honde
Honde Valley
Valley wetlands.
wetlands. (a)
(a) A
A farmer
farmer picking
picking mush-
mush-
rooms; (b) indigenous
rooms; (b) indigenousfruit
fruitcollection;
collection; (c,d)
(c,d) beehives
beehives placed
placed on trees
on trees round
round a river;
a river; (c) a beehive
(c) a beehive made
made
by theby the owner
owner of the of the beekeeping
beekeeping project;project; (d) a beehive
(d) a beehive made
made by by a carpenter.
a carpenter.Respondents used different farming methods and practices in the wetlands, in-
formed by their socioeconomic background, technical expertise, access to machin-
ery/chemicals, and the cultural context of traditional practices. All (100%) the farmers
used organic manure and hand-dug trenches by ploughing. A majority also dug holes for
Sustainability 2022, 14, 1789 planting purposes (57%) and used crop residue, grass, and manure as mulches (75%) 6 of or
14
other inorganic or organic fertilizers (65%), the latter also including tea leaves and leaf
litter. A minority of farmers (26%) used zero tillage. Woody and leaf debris was com-
posted at the start of the dry season in March before applying to the fields in August when
3.2. Farming Methods Used by Farmers
many crops were sown. The role of traditional and indigenous knowledge in agricultural
Respondents
practices is shownused by thedifferent
example farming
of yammethods
production, and practices
discussedinby the wetlands,
many informed
respondents in
by their socioeconomic background, technical expertise, access
the field. Respondent 6 reported that farmers used organic manure for yams to ensure to machinery/chemicals,
and
that the
the cultural
yam bulb context of traditional
develops, and thatpractices. All (100%)make
artificial fertilisers the farmers
yams rot used organic
if they manure
receive too
and hand-dug trenches by ploughing. A majority also dug holes
much rainfall. Most yam producers dug holes for planting, whereas respondent 5 reported for planting purposes
(57%) and used
that digging holescropwasresidue,
an old grass,
systemand andmanure
that heas mulchesto
preferred (75%) or otherwhich
use ridges, inorganic
he saidor
organic fertilizers (65%), the latter also including tea leaves and leaf litter. A minority of
gave the yam and cocoyam bulb more room to grow (Figure 3). Respondent 20 said:
farmers (26%) used zero tillage. Woody and leaf debris was composted at the start of the
dry season“Whenin March I gotbefore
married here, weto
applying used
thetofields
dig holes, but now
in August when we aremanydigging
cropsridges. I
were sown.
am the one who started the ridge system here on Madimbo wetland,
The role of traditional and indigenous knowledge in agricultural practices is shown by the and people started
copying.
example of yamI decided to use the
production, ridge system
discussed becauserespondents
by many it makes it easy to bury
in the theRespondent
field. yam into 6
the soil when planting it. When using ridges, you have to go inside
reported that farmers used organic manure for yams to ensure that the yam bulb develops, the ridge and start
putting
and that the soilfertilisers
artificial on top of the
makeyamyams
from rot
bothif sides.
they It is also too
receive easymuchto mound soil around
rainfall. Most yam
the yam
producers dug when
holes using the ridge system.
for planting, whereas When the yam 5isreported
respondent planted using the ridgeholes
that digging system,was an
it also has
old system andmore
thatroom to grow big.
he preferred I thought
to use ridges,ofwhich
this ridge method
he said gave after
thespending
yam and a lot of
cocoyam
money contracting people who would
bulb more room to grow (Figure 3). Respondent 20 said:help me mound soil on the yam.”
Figure 3.
Figure 3. Methods
Methodsofofplanting
planting yams
yams in in
thethe study
study area.area. Farmers
Farmers (a) digging
(a) digging holes;holes;
and (b)and (b) digging
digging ridges.
ridges.
“When I got married here, we used to dig holes, but now we are digging ridges. I am the
However,
one respondent
who started the ridge16 said here
system thatonshe was unwilling
Madimbo wetland,to change
and people to the ridge
started system
copying.
since she once tried it and it was difficult for her to mound soil around the yam and coco-
I decided to use the ridge system because it makes it easy to bury the yam into the soil
yam.when planting
Ridges it. Whenfarmers
also allowed using ridges, you have
to make use ofto the
go inside
limitedthespace
ridge and start putting
available to them to
the soil on top of the yam from both sides. It is also easy to mound
plant crops; hence, this allowed them to practice intercropping and mixed farming. soil around the yamThus,
after when using
planting the ridge
yams, maizesystem. When the
was planted onyamtopisofplanted
the yam using
ridgethetwo
ridge system,
weeks it also
later because
has more room to grow big. I thought of this ridge method after spending
yams take longer to germinate than maize. Respondent 20 also added that ridges allow a lot of money
for a contracting
higher plant people who than
density wouldholes
help me
and,mound soil onuse
therefore, thethe
yam.”
land more efficiently.
Trenches
However, have been
respondent 16 hand-dug by was
said that she ploughing
unwillingon all
to wetlands.
change to Trenches
the ridge drained both
system since
the once
she surface and
tried underground
it and water
it was difficult forand
her often
to moundmarked the boundaries
soil around the yam ofandeach farm.
cocoyam.
Trenches
Ridges were
also normally
allowed connected
farmers to maketogether
use ofor directed
the limitedinto oneavailable
space big trench,
to and
themthis
to could
plant
crops; hence, this allowed them to practice intercropping and mixed farming. Thus, after
planting yams, maize was planted on top of the yam ridge two weeks later because yams
take longer to germinate than maize. Respondent 20 also added that ridges allow for a
higher plant density than holes and, therefore, use the land more efficiently.
Trenches have been hand-dug by ploughing on all wetlands. Trenches drained both the
surface and underground water and often marked the boundaries of each farm. Trenches
were normally connected together or directed into one big trench, and this could sometimes
develop into a small flowing stream. Farmers left grass adjacent to the trenches and
sometimes planted sugarcane at the edges of trenches in order to hold the soil together.Sustainability 2022, 14, 1789 7 of 14
Respondent 13 said that people were supposed to avoid digging trenches, since this would
lower the water table. Respondent 9 noted that trenches were supposed to be closed at both
ends so that the water would drain underground and not overflow and cause erosion, as
was observed in the Rutsate wetland. Flooded trenches compelled farmers to build access
bridges to the wetlands, and this involved clearing vegetation and cutting down trees to
make wooden log bridges.
3.3. Other Goods and Services Found in Wetlands
Besides for food and agriculture, wetland water was used for domestic purposes such
as cooking, washing, bathing, and drinking. Water was collected from wetland spring
wells using plastic containers. Some respondents would also bath and wash their clothes in
the wetlands (Figure 4a), but detergents could potentially affect aquatic plants and insects.
Both natural and planted bamboo were harvested for making handicraft items such as
baskets, lamp holders, handbags, and toiletry holders (Figure 4b). Medicinal plants were
also harvested from the wetlands, and these were used to treat different disorders (Table 1).
Their use was informed by indigenous and traditional knowledge. Respondents 1 and
11 noted that some medicinal plants are removed when farmers prepare the soil for crop
planting. Respondents 2 and 3 also said that the use, and even knowledge of, medicinal
plants conflicted with their Christian beliefs, highlighting the multiple cultural contexts in
which wetland resources were viewed and used. Respondent 3 also noted that there were
fewer traditional healers who have insight into which medicinal plants were useful, or who
could teach others about these, and thus such traditional knowledge was being lost.
Table 1. Examples of medicinal plants found in the wetlands and their uses by local people.
Botanical Name Plant Species Local Name Type of Illness to Be Treated
Ximenia caffra Bawa Backache
Breonadia salicina (Adina
Muonya Backache
microcephala)
Grewia bicolor Mungurawe Stomachache
Erythrina abyssinica Mutiti Diarrhoea
Syzygium cordatum Muhute Coughing
Scleria foliosa Jekacheka Menstrual cramps
Carissa bispinosa Kayanyasika Backache
Zingiber officinale Roscoe Tsangamidzi Stomachache
3.4. Cultural Use of Wetlands
Cultural services founded on indigenous knowledge were also provided by these
wetlands, and in different ways. Village head 1 said,
“We are still burying children in the wetlands, especially those who die soon after birth
and stillbirth. We bury these children in wet places such as wetlands.”
This traditional practice, however, was not always continuing today, but wetlands
were still valued as sacred places that have cultural resonance. Village head 1 said,
“Some places are still sacred though there are few. There are also sacred wells that do not
dry up. All metal things are not allowed to be brought close to these wells to fetch water
from these sacred wells except clay pots.”
Respondent 6 explained that
“Our well called Ben’s well dried up once another year because we had taken some dirty
pots from the fire and soap there. We had to spend almost a year fetching water from a
well further away until our elders performed some rituals, then the spring water came
out of Ben’s well.”and sometimes planted sugarcane at the edges of trenches in order to hold the soil to-
gether. Respondent 13 said that people were supposed to avoid digging trenches, since
this would lower the water table. Respondent 9 noted that trenches were supposed to be
closed at both ends so that the water would drain underground and not overflow and
Sustainability 2022, 14, 1789 cause erosion, as was observed in the Rutsate wetland. Flooded trenches compelled farm-
8 of 14
ers to build access bridges to the wetlands, and this involved clearing vegetation and cut-
ting down trees to make wooden log bridges.
Traditional leaders considered it taboo for older people to clean around these sacred
3.3. Other Goods and Services Found in Wetlands
wells, and young mothers and girls were sent to remove dirty items from around the wells.
Besidesheads
The village for food
didandnotagriculture,
allow people wetland
to visitwater was used
the wetlands at for domestic
night purposes
or dressed such
in tattered
as cooking, washing, bathing, and drinking. Water was collected from
clothes or half-naked. However, most of the spring wells that used to be sacred were no wetland spring
wells
longerusing plastic as
considered containers. Some
such because respondents
people would
had stopped also bathtraditional
following and washpractices
their clothes
and
in the wetlands
values. Village head(Figure 4a), but detergents could potentially affect aquatic plants and in-
3 said:
sects. Both natural and planted bamboo were harvested for making handicraft items such
“It used to be a traditional practice that village members would come and help the village
as baskets, lamp holders, handbags, and toiletry holders (Figure 4b). Medicinal plants
head weed his wetland fields to honour him. But now people are not doing that. People
were also harvested from the wetlands, and these were used to treat different disorders
are now practicing modern ways of living which do not respect our traditional practices.
(Table 1). Their use was informed by indigenous and traditional knowledge. Respondents
So if I call people for such gatherings, few people come. Most people no longer understand
1 and 11 noted that some medicinal plants are removed when farmers prepare the soil for
our culture and practices.”
crop planting. Respondents 2 and 3 also said that the use, and even knowledge of, medic-
inal plants
Likewise,conflicted
brewing with their
beer Christian
before beliefs,
the onset highlighting
of the crop planting the season
multiple wascultural con-
a common
texts in which wetland resources were viewed and used. Respondent 3 also noted that
practice in the area. Village head 1 explained that beer would be brewed at the chief’s home,
there
and thewere
chieffewer
wouldtraditional healersthe
then announce who have insight
beginning of theinto whichseason
planting medicinal
afterplants were
performing
useful, or who could teach others about these, and thus such traditional knowledge
traditional rituals. However, some farmers were too impatient and start to plant was
their crops
beforelost.
being the ceremony. These traditional practices were also eroded by Christian beliefs.
Figure 4. (a) Bathing area on a stream in Tawarara A wetland. Wetland users use the rocks as a clean
Figure 4. (a) Bathing area on a stream in Tawarara A wetland. Wetland users use the rocks as a clean
and safe platform to stand to bathe. They avoid making the water dirty by standing on the rock
and safe platform to stand to bathe. They avoid making the water dirty by standing on the rock
whilst bathing. The big stones created clean area for them to put their toiletries. (b) Handicraft items
whilst bathing.
made from The big
bamboo stones created
harvested clean area for them to put their toiletries. (b) Handicraft items
in the wetlands.
made from bamboo harvested in the wetlands.
4. Discussion
4.1. Different Ecosystem Services Provided by Valley Bottom Wetlands
Wetland use is discussed using the ecosystems services approach as a way of assessing
the relationships between different ecosystems and their contribution to human wellbeing
and decision making by wetland users [43–45]. The results show that wetland ecosystem
services are highly diverse and are exploited in different ways by wetland users according
to their needs and values and informed by their community cultural contexts. Figure 5
illustrates the interconnections between different service types, as based on evidence
from the interviews and observations with Honde Valley wetland users. Supporting
services such as soil formation through the accumulation of organic matter and nutrient
cycling provide the framework for provisioning, regulatory, and cultural services (Figure 5).
Different provisioning services include indigenous and exotic fruits, traditional vegetables,
medicinal plants, food crops, fish, and honey (Figure 2). However, these can only develop
because of the physical environmental resources providing supporting services in the
wetlands [46]. These patterns are also found in other Zimbabwe wetlands [47–49].ing services such as soil formation through the accumulation of organic matter and nutrient
cycling provide the framework for provisioning, regulatory, and cultural services (Figure 5).
Different provisioning services include indigenous and exotic fruits, traditional vegetables,
medicinal plants, food crops, fish, and honey (Figure 2). However, these can only develop
Sustainability 2022, 14, 1789 because of the physical environmental resources providing supporting services in the wet-
9 of 14
lands [46]. These patterns are also found in other Zimbabwe wetlands [47–49].
Relationshipsbetween
Figure5.5.Relationships
Figure betweendifferent
differentecosystem
ecosystemservices
servicesfound
foundininHonde
HondeValley
Valleywetlands.
wetlands.
Provisioning services also include natural food products that are secondary outcomes
Provisioning services also include natural food products that are secondary out-
of wetland plant systems and biodiversity. Different plant species grow when the wetlands
comes of wetland plant systems and biodiversity. Different plant species grow when the
are left idle after crop harvest, and this provides habitats for grasshoppers and mice that
wetlands are left idle after crop harvest, and this provides habitats for grasshoppers and
are then hunted. The availability of fish, grasshoppers, mice, traditional vegetables, and
mice that are then hunted. The availability of fish, grasshoppers, mice, traditional vegeta-
wild fruits shows that local residents make use of diverse nutritional food sources. Fish
bles, and wild fruits shows that local residents make use of diverse nutritional food
is considered a delicacy in these rural areas, and therefore fish farming for consumption
sources.
and sale Fish is considered
is seen a delicacy
as an important in theseactivity.
economic rural areas,
Thisand therefore
is similar fishBahi
to the farming for
wetland
consumption and sale is seen as an important economic activity. This is similar
in Tanzania, where local communities rely on wild fish for protein and sale [6]. These to the Bahi
wetland
wetlands in therefore
Tanzania,act where local communities
as socioeconomic rely
safety netsonfor
wild fishsecurity,
food for protein and provided
as they sale [6].
These wetlands
diversified therefore
diets act asnutrition-rich
with various socioeconomic safety
food thatnets
couldforbe
food security,
easily as they
accessed pro-or
for little
vided diversified diets with various
no cost, and during the dry season. nutrition-rich food that could be easily accessed for
little orThe
no unique
cost, and during the dry season.
geographical location of these valley bottom wetlands allows the accu-
The unique
mulation geographical
of organic location
matter from of these
upslope, valley
making bottom
them morewetlands
fertile and allows the accu-
productive than
mulation
dryland rain-fed agriculture. As the main activity that significantly contributes tothan
of organic matter from upslope, making them more fertile and productive food
security, agriculture is successfully carried out due to the availability of supporting services
that ensure the availability of nutrients for crop growth (Figure 5). Wetlands in semiarid
areas have long been used intensively for agriculture due to their higher water availability
and productive soils [47,49–51]. Thus, the availability of water and good soil also ensures
the availability of provisioning services (Figure 5). Climate variability, which results in er-
ratic rainfall patterns and unproductive dryland soils, compels farmers to turn to wetlands
for agriculture. This concurs with findings that show an increase in wetland cultivation on
rural wetlands in Midlands Province, Zimbabwe, due to a decline in rainfall [48]. Climate
variability had therefore increased pressure on the wetlands. Most of the respondents (90%)
in the Honde Valley wetlands are subsistence farmers who depend on selling surplus yields
for income, showing that the wetlands act as economic hubs for the community. This is
similar to other studies in rural wetlands in Zimbabwe and elsewhere [49].
Although only a few farmers did fish farming and basket weaving, these are consid-
ered critical economic activities significant to rural livelihoods, since a high income can be
generated [47]. The growth of bamboo and reeds in Zindi wetlands was due to supporting
services such as hydric soils and a downslope supply of nutrients that help plant growth.Sustainability 2022, 14, 1789 10 of 14
A similar study in the Midlands province indicated that rural people were using wetlands
to grow various crops, which attracted external markets [48]. Other work also suggests
that, despite relying on food imports, the basic needs for food consumption in urban areas
in Africa more generally are supplied by rural farmers [52], similar to the internal trade
networks into which wetland users in the Honde Valley are connected, to urban centres in
Harare and Mutare. However, increased crop diversity in the Honde Valley was not only
crucial for external consumers but also for the economic and food security of local people.
Exotic fruits such as bananas and avocadoes were grown in the wetlands, and indigenous
fruits helped supplement the community’s diet.
Water as a crucial wetland resource is exploited and managed in both direct and
indirect ways. Spring wells providing clean and fresh water are found in all the wetlands.
Regulatory services through hydrological flows allow groundwater interactions through
springs and water purification through the absorption of pollutants and by flood regulation
along drainage trenches and streams [7,24,53]. Here, local people take water from the
wetlands for household use and by created bathing places (Figure 4a). It is difficult to drill
boreholes in upland areas surrounding the Honde Valley because of the terrain, making
the water table too unreachable. This, therefore, focuses community water use on valley
bottom wetlands. Although the hydrological flows and processes were significant for
provisioning services of clean water, they are continually disturbed by the exploitation
of wetlands for agriculture. This has the outcome that regulatory services are decreasing,
which is evidenced by the drying up of some parts of the wetlands and the presence of soil
erosion. The similar deterioration of wetland systems is noted elsewhere [25,27,44]. The
supporting services of wetland soils help maintain the regulatory services of soil retention,
soil erosion, and flood buffering (Figure 5). Agriculture also significantly transforms
wetland environments despite the presence of natural ecosystems [54]. This means that
human activities such as agriculture can impact both supporting and regulatory services,
which increase the vulnerability of the wetland to climate change, and other processes such
as urban encroachment and wetland drainage [55,56].
Figure 5 shows some of the linked relationships between different ecosystems found
in the Honde Valley wetlands. Supporting ecosystem services provide the framework that
leads to the development, properties, and dynamics of provisioning, regulatory, and cul-
tural services. Supporting services such as soil and sediment retention make it possible for
wetlands to provide regulatory services such as the regulation of hydrological flows, water
purification, and waste treatment. Simultaneously, regulatory services such as hydrological
flows through groundwater discharge and water purification help ensure the availability
of cultural services such as sacred spring wells or the availability of medicinal plants.
The wetlands examined in this study are also valued for their cultural services, which
suggests that these services provide local communities with a sense of identity, cohesion,
place, and relationship to past generations. Key foodstuffs obtained from wetlands such as
yam and cocoyam, which were grown in the past, link residents to their traditional cultures,
diets, and activities/rituals [50,57]. This also includes harvesting medicinal plants (Table 1).
Traditional practices such as infant burial imply that wetlands can still provide sites and
practices of traditional religious or cultural significance. Such cultural ecosystem services
also play a role in enhancing people’s social wellbeing [58,59], and these can be attained
through supporting services and partly by regulatory and provisioning services (Figure 5).
4.2. Impacts of Wetland Agriculture on Different Ecosystem Services
The different types of agriculture and different crops grown on the wetlands impact
on natural ecology and biodiversity. Although sustainable agricultural practices are essen-
tial for bringing about socioeconomic and environmental benefits [60], wetland farmers
in the Honde Valley employ both ‘sustainable’ (mulching, use of organic manure, zero
tillage, and mixed intercropping) and ‘unsustainable’ practices (deep ploughing, burning
of weeds, streambank cultivation, digging of trenches, and use of inorganic fertilisers) in
their agriculture. Since this community relies on wetland farming for food as well as otherSustainability 2022, 14, 1789 11 of 14
socioeconomic benefits, these different farming practices are used for their instrumental
value in providing such benefits. Sustainable farming methods such as zero tillage ensure a
minimum disturbance of wetland soil by preserving soil fertility and reducing soil erosion
and compaction. Zero tillage also reduces production costs, as it allows tillage savings.
However, few farmers (26%) were using zero tillage, whilst most farmers preferred hand-
dug ploughing (74%) during land preparation to destroy weeds and grass. A similar study
on dambo cultivation in Chiota, Zimbabwe, also showed that zero tillage and digging
are the most common farming methods [21]. However, as hand digging and ploughing
was done by many farmers in the Honde Valley, there is likely to be a high degree of soil
disturbance, which would impact wetland ecological and hydrological processes.
A variety of leguminous, leaf, and root crops grown in the wetlands ensures nutrient
exchange within the soil, and the main commercial crops grown (bananas, yams, and
cocoyams) play a vital role in binding the soil together, reducing soil erosion. Similar
‘sustainable’ crop growing strategies were observed in the Maonazvawo wetland, Zim-
babwe, where crop diversification allows the fixing of different nutrients within the soil,
and crops such as yams also assisted in reducing soil loss [51]. Soil nutrition retention
through the different types of crops also contributes to high yields and promotes social and
economic sustainability. The use of leaf litter, crop residue, weeds and compost manure
also assists in improving soil texture, which enhances soil water holding capacity and soil
fertility (Figure 5). This in turn then reduces crop vulnerability during dry periods, hence
improving crop output. Mulching assists in reducing weed growth, soil erosion, and soil
compaction and retaining soil moisture. Mixed intercropping also assists in suppressing
weeds, reducing soil erosion, controlling pests, and improving crop yields [61].
4.3. Trade-Offs in the Exploitation of Ecosystem Services
The overexploitation of wetlands has always determined the trade-offs between dif-
ferent wetland services [30,31]. However, the overuse of valley bottom wetlands for
agriculture has led to increased food production at the expense of other wetland services,
such as supporting and regulatory services. Several respondents reported the loss of sup-
porting services and regulatory services, evidenced by the loss of soil fertility, diversion of
water due to trench digging, drying up of some parts of wetlands, and gully erosion. Thus,
action to increase one ecosystem service can lead to the degradation of one or more other
services. This includes an overall reduction in wetland soil fertility and ecohydrological
integrity. Optimising the use of valley bottom wetlands for provisioning services came at
the expense of biodiversity, where a reduction or loss of some animal and plant species
in the wetlands, and an increase and spread of invasive plant species, was reported by
some respondents. A study on ecosystem trade-offs on Halu wetland, Israel, also showed
optimisation of the wetland for nutrient storage leading to biodiversity loss [62].
The reported drying of some parts of the wetlands may be an unwanted outcome
of the trade-off between ecosystem use and reduction some of the available ecosystem
services. This may reflect both wetland overexploitation as well as climate change. The
deterioration of supporting services due to overexploitation for provisioning services also
affects the availability and type of regulatory (climate regulation, water regulation, and
sediment retention) and cultural services (Figure 5). This suggests that these different
trade-offs should be considered when identifying strategies for wetland management and
sustainability [63–65]. As a result of different activities in the wetlands, ecosystem services
do not remain static [30]. Activities such as agricultural production disturb the ecological
processes and functions of wetlands, which then affect their supporting, regulatory, and cul-
tural services (Figure 5). These feedbacks and trade-offs are critical to understand in order
to ensure ecosystem services are available for local communities, especially under climate
change, and this requires more detailed insight of local people, their actions and values.Sustainability 2022, 14, 1789 12 of 14
5. Conclusions
Based on the data collected from local communities on valley bottom wetlands in
eastern Zimbabwe, this study shows the interconnections and feedbacks between different
wetland ecosystem services and how these are valued and used. Regulatory services such
as hydrological flows allow for the transport of nutrients essential for crop growth, which
in turn result in improvement of supporting services such as soil formation and nutrient
cycling, and this then leads to the development of both cultural and provisioning services.
This linkage is not well documented in many previous studies, but the results presented
here show that complex feedbacks and trade-offs between different services exist, deter-
mined by different activities in the wetlands. Although agriculture and food production
represent the main provisioning ecosystem service, the role of cultural values and traditions
as a mediating factor in ecosystem service use has been previously underplayed. This
study shows that understanding the embedded cultural contexts of ecosystem service use,
especially by rural communities in the developing world, enables a fuller understand-
ing of ecosystem service provision and vulnerability. Cultural context influences users’
decision-making and thus the trade-offs that exist in the use of different ecosystem services.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.K.; methodology, E.M. and J.K.; field data collection,
E.M.; writing—original draft preparation, E.M.; writing—review and editing, J.K.; supervision, J.K.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration
of Helsinki, and approved by the Ethics Committee of University of the Witwatersrand, protocol
H18/09/13, approved 25 Ocrober 2018.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Silvius, M.J.; Oneka, M.; Verhagen, A. Wetlands: Lifeline for people at the edge. Phys. Chem. Earth Part B Hydrol. Oc. Atmos. 2000,
25, 645–652. [CrossRef]
2. Maltby, E.; Acreman, M.C. Ecosystem services of wetlands: Pathfinder for a new paradigm. Hydrol. Sci. J. 2011, 56, 1341–1359.
[CrossRef]
3. Bouahim, S.; Rhazi, L.; Ernoul, L.; Mathevet, R.; Amami, B.; Er-Riyahi, S.; Muller, S.D.; Grillas, P. Combining vulnerability
analysis and perceptions of ecosystem services in sensitive landscapes: A case from western Moroccan temporary wetlands.
J. Nat. Conserv. 2015, 27, 1–9. [CrossRef]
4. Kühne, O.; Duttmann, R. Recent challenges of the ecosystems services approach from an interdisciplinary point of view. Spat. Res.
Plan. 2000, 78, 171–184. [CrossRef]
5. Kingsford, R.T.; Bino, G.; Finlayson, C.M.; Falster, D.; Fitzsimons, J.A.; Gawlik, D.E.; Murray, N.J.; Grillas, P.; Gardner, R.C.; Regan,
T.J.; et al. Ramsar Wetlands of International Importance—Improving Conservation Outcomes. Front. Environ. Sci. 2021, 9, 643367.
[CrossRef]
6. Mwakaje, A.G. Wetlands, livelihoods and sustainability in Tanzania. Afr. J. Ecol. 2009, 47, 179–184. [CrossRef]
7. Rebelo, L.-M.; McCartney, M.P.; Finlayson, C.M. Wetlands of Sub-Saharan Africa: Distribution and contribution of agriculture to
livelihoods. Wetl. Ecol. Manag. 2010, 18, 557–572. [CrossRef]
8. Kumar, R.; Horwitz, P.; Milton, G.R.; Sellamuttu, S.S.; Buckton, S.T.; Davidson, N.C.; Pattnaik, A.K.; Zavagli, M.; Baker, C.
Assessing wetland ecosystem services and poverty interlinkages: A general framework and case study. Hydrol. Sci. J. 2011, 56,
1602–1621. [CrossRef]
9. Leauthaud, C.; Duvail, S.; Hamerlynck, O.; Paul, J.L.; Cochet, H.; Nyunja, J.; Albergel, J.; Grünberger, O. Floods and liveli-
hoods: The impact of changing water resources on wetland agro-ecological production systems in the Tana River Delta, Kenya.
Glob. Environ. Ch. 2013, 23, 252–263. [CrossRef]
10. Dixon, A.; Carrie, R. Creating local institutional arrangements for sustainable wetland socio-ecological systems: Lessons from the
‘Striking a Balance’ project in Malawi. Int. J. Sustain. Develop. World Ecol. 2016, 23, 40–52. [CrossRef]
11. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005.
12. Miyasaka, T.; Le, Q.B.; Okuro, T.; Zhao, X.; Takeuchi, K. Agent-based modeling of complex social-ecological feedback loops to
assess multi-dimensional trade-offs in dryland ecosystem services. Landsc. Ecol. 2017, 32, 707–727. [CrossRef]Sustainability 2022, 14, 1789 13 of 14
13. Langan, C.; Farmer, J.; Rivington, M.; Smith, J.U. Tropical wetland ecosystem ervices assessments in East Africa: A review of
approaches and challenges. Environ. Model. Softw. 2018, 102, 260–273. [CrossRef]
14. Blackwell, M.S.A.; Pilgrim, E.S. Ecosystem services delivered by small-scale wetlands. Hydrol. Sci. J. 2011, 56, 1467–1484.
[CrossRef]
15. Scoones, I. Wetlands in drylands: Key resources for agricultural and pastoral production in Africa. Ambio 1991, 20, 366–370.
16. Wood, A.; Dixon, A.; McCartney, M. Wetland Management and Sustainable Livelihoods in Africa; Routledge: Oxford, UK, 2013.
17. Marambanyika, T.; Beckedahl, H. Institutional arrangements governing wetland utilization and conservation in communal areas
of Zimbabwe. Rev. Soc. Sci. 2016, 2, 1–17. [CrossRef]
18. Marambanyika, T.; Beckedahl, H. The missing link between awareness and the implementation of wetland policy and legislation
in communal areas of Zimbabwe. Wetl. Ecol. Manag. 2016, 24, 545–563. [CrossRef]
19. Dixon, A.; Wood, A.; Hailu, A. Wetlands in Ethiopia: Lessons From 20 years of Research, Policy and Practice. Wetlands 2021, 41,
20. [CrossRef]
20. Nyamadzawo, G.; Wuta, M.; Nyamangara, J.; Nyamugafata, P.; Tendayi, T. Burning, biomass removal and tillage effects on soil
organic carbon and nutrients in seasonal wetlands (dambos) of Chiota smallholder farming area, Zimbabwe. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci.
2014, 60, 1411–1427. [CrossRef]
21. Nyamadzawo, G.; Wuta, M.; Nyamangara, J.; Smith, J.L.; Rees, R.M. Nitrous oxide and methane emissions from cultivated
seasonal wetland (dambo) soils with inorganic, organic and integrated nutrient management. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2014, 100,
161–175. [CrossRef]
22. Nyamadzawo, G.; Wuta, M.; Nyamangara, J.; Nyamugafata, P.; Chirinda, N. Optimizing dambo (seasonal wetland) cultivation for
climate change adaptation and sustainable crop production in the smallholder farming areas of Zimbabwe. Int. J. Agric. Sustain.
2015, 13, 23–39. [CrossRef]
23. Sarkar, P.; Das, T. Wetland Ecosystem Services and its Valuation with Special Reference to India—A Review. In Biodiversity and
Environmental Conservation; Upadhaya, K., Ed.; Discovery Publishing House Pvt: New Delhi, India, 2016; pp. 59–76.
24. Kangalawe, R.Y.M.; Liwenga, E.T. Livelihoods in the wetlands of Kilombero Valley in Tanzania: Opportunities and challenges to
integrated water resource management. Phys. Chem. Earth 2005, 30, 968–975. [CrossRef]
25. Hasan, S.S.; Zhen, L.; Miah, M.G.; Ahamed, T.; Samie, A. Impact of land use change on ecosystem services: A review.
Environ. Develop. 2020, 34, 100527. [CrossRef]
26. Horwitz, P.; Finlayson, C.M. Wetlands as Settings for Human Health: Incorporating Ecosystem Services and Health Impact
Assessment into Water Resource Management. BioScience 2011, 61, 678–688. [CrossRef]
27. Mvula, P.M.; Haller, T. Common pool resource management in Lake Chilwa, Malawi: A wetland under pressure. Develop. S. Afr.
2009, 26, 539–553. [CrossRef]
28. Senaratna Sellamuttu, S.; de Silva, S.; Nguyen-Khoa, S. Exploring relationships between conservation and poverty reduction in
wetland ecosystems: Lessons from 10 integrated wetland conservation and poverty reduction initiatives. Int. J. Sustain. Develop.
World Ecol. 2011, 18, 328–340. [CrossRef]
29. Kindler, J. Linking ecological and development objectives: Trade-offs and imperatives. Ecol. Applic. 1998, 8, 591–600. [CrossRef]
30. Rodríguez, J.P.; Beard, T.D.; Bennett, E.M.; Cumming, G.S.; Cork, S.J.; Agard, J.; Dobson, A.P.; Peterson, G.D. Trade-offs across
space, time, and ecosystem services. Ecol. Soc. 2006, 11, 28. [CrossRef]
31. Braat, L.C.; de Groot, R. The ecosystem services agenda: Bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and
development, and public and private policy. Ecosyst. Serv. 2012, 1, 4–15. [CrossRef]
32. Frenken, K.; Mharapara, I. Wetland Development and Management in SADC Countries—Proceedings of a Sub-Regional Workshop 19–23
November 2001; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2002.
33. Mäckel, R. Dambos: A study in morphodynamic activity on the plateau regions of Zambia. Catena 1973, 1, 327–365. [CrossRef]
34. Roberts, N. Dambos in development: Management of a fragile ecological resource. J. Biogeogr. 1988, 15, 141–148. [CrossRef]
35. von der Heyden, C.J. The hydrology and hydrogeology of dambos: A review. Progr. Phys. Geogr. 2004, 28, 544–564. [CrossRef]
36. Koistinen, T.; Lehtonen, M.I.; Fernando, S.; Matola, R. Contribution to the structure at the eastern margin of the Archaean
Zimbabwe craton, Mozambique. In GTK Consortium Geological Surveys in Mozambique 2002–2007; Pekkala, Y., Lehto, T., Mäkitie,
H., Eds.; Geological Survey of Finland: Helsinki, Finland, 2008; pp. 121–144.
37. Nyamapfene, K. The Soils of Zimbabwe; Nehanda Publishers: Harare, Zimbabwe, 1991.
38. Mugandani, R.; Wuta, M.; Mukarau, A.; Chipindu, B. Re-classification of the Agro-Ecological Regions of Zimbabwe in Conformity
With Climate Variability and Change. Afr. Crop. Sci. J. 2012, 20, 361–369.
39. Love, D.; Uhlenbrook, S.; Twomlow, S.; van der Zaag, P. Changing rainfall and discharge patterns in the northern Limpopo Basin,
Zimbabwe. Water SA 2010, 36, 335–350.
40. Garwe, D.; Munzara-Chawira, A.; Kusena, K. The Zimbabwe Country Report on the State of Plant–Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture; Ministry of Agriculture Mechanisation and Irrigation Development: Harare, Zimbabwe, 2009.
41. Zinyuke, R. Honde Valley Dreams Big; Her Press: Harare, Zimbabwe, 2019.
42. Shambare, C. Resource Use and Environmental Sustainability: Horticulture in Relation to Other Forms of Land Water and Human Resource
Usage and Impact on Water Resources and Soil Erosion; University of Zimbabwe Publications: Harare, Zimbabwe, 1997.
43. Ingram, J.C.; Redford, K.H.; Watson, J.E.M. Applying ecosystem services approaches for biodiversity conservation: Benefits and
challenges. Sapiens 2012, 5, 1.You can also read
